Who the personages may be, who intervene between Sisuthrus and Alorus, that is between Noah and Nimrod, is hard to determine. Thus much we know, that the Patriarch never assumed royalty; so that there could be no connexion between them as monarchs in succession. The series exhibited in the history must have been by family descent, in which Nimrod stood only fourth; so that all the personages but two, of those who had been introduced in the interval, are probably kings of other places in Chaldea; or priests who had a kind of sovereign rule, and have been wrongly inserted. Sisuthrus is, past controversy, 49 Noah. Amelon is composed of the titles of Ham, consisting of Am El On, all relating to the Sun or Orus, under which character this person was in aftertimes worshipped. Daus Pastor is by Apollodorus expressed Daonus, from 5° Da On, the Sun, a title assumed by Ham and his sons. Amenon, like Amelon, is made up of terms which are all titles of the same person, * Νωε Είσεθρος παρα Χαλδαίοις. Cedrenus p. 11. 10 It is a title given to Orion, who was the same as Nimrod. Chron. Pasch. 36. He is styled Chan-Daon, the Lord Daon, by Lycophron; who mentions Τριπατορος φασγανον Κανδανος. ν. 328. scilicet Ωρίωνος, ἐν και Κανδανία Βοιωτοι καλεσιν. Schol. ibid. So Megalorus of Abydenus is Mag-Alorus; in other words, Magus Alorus, Nebrodes, Orion, the chief of the Magi. each of them well known in Egypt. Alaparus seems to be the same as Al-Porus, the God of fire. Amillarus is a compound of Ham-El-Arez, all names of Ham and the sun. Some of the persons are said to be of Laracha, which Syncellus expresses wrongly Larancha. Laracha is for AlAracha, the Aracca of Ptolemy, one of the cities built by "Nimrod; others are said to be of Pantibibla or Pantibiblon, whom I take to have been Ponti-Babilon, or priests of Babel or Babylon. Panti, Ponti, and Phonti in the Amonian language signified a " priest. Argeiphontes in Greece. was an Arkite priest, or minister of Argus; but the Grecians supposed that Phontes denoted slaughter, from a word in their own language; and in consequence of it bestowed the name on Hermes, whom they made the murderer of Argus. Pontifex and Pontifices among the Romans were 52 5 He built Babel, and ERECH, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Gen. c. 10. v. 10. 52 Hence Igoparns, a sacred priest, or priest of Orus; Kabaξεφάντης; Hermophontes; Ceresphontes; Λευκοφοντης from Λευκος, Sol. See Jablonsky Prolegom. p. 90. Phantasia of Memphis was properly Phant-Asis, a priestess of Asis or Isis. Amillarus, Megalorus, Adorescus, Alaparus, Daon the Shepherd, are all said to have been of Pantibiblon. This was not a place, but an office; and it signified that they were priests of Babel. titles of the priests of fire. I imagine that the original list, which has been supposed to have been a dynasty of antediluvian kings, was the genealogy of Nimrod, the first king of the country, in which were contained four persons; Sisuthrus, or the Patriarch: next, under the character of "Amenon, Amelon, Amilarus, is Ham: Eudoreschus (Euc-Ad-Arez-Chus) is his son Chus: and, lastly, Alorus and Daonus the Shepherd was Nimrod; for it is expressly said of him that he took the title of " Shepherd. The rest are foreign to the catalogue; and through ignorance have been inserted. It is said that both Oannes and Sisuthrus instructed men in the knowledge of letters, and committed many things to writing. And it is the opinion of many learned men that letters were not unknown to the people of the antediluvian world. Pliny says, Literas semper arbitror Assyria fuisse. But this was only matter of opinion; and as he, a professed geographer, makes no distinction be 52 Amenon may be Menon ill expressed, the same as Men or Menes. This was one of the most antient of the sacred titles. Anticlides in Egypto invenisse quendam nomine Menona tradit, quindecim annos ante Phoroneum antiquissimum Græciæ regem: idque monumentis adprobare conatur, Plinii Nat. Hist. 1. 7. 53 Abydenus above quoted. tween the Assyrians and Babylonians, who were two very different people, but introduces the former by mistake for the latter: we cannot pay much regard to his notions in chronology. If the people of the first ages had been possessed of so valuable a secret as that of writing, they would never have afterwards descended to means less perfect for the explanation of their ideas. And it is to be observed, that the invention of hieroglyphics was certainly a discovery of the Chaldeans; and made use of in the first ages by the Egyptians; the very nations, who are supposed to have been possessed of the superior and more perfect art. They might retain the former, when they became possessed of the latter; because their antient records were entrusted to hieroglyphics: but, had they been possessed of letters originally, they would never have deviated into the use of symbols: at least, for things, which were to be published to the world, and which were to be commemorated for ages. Of their hieroglyphics we have samples without end in Egypt; both on obelisks, and in their syringes as also upon their portals, and other buildings. Every mummy almost abounds with them. How comes it, if they had writing so early, that scarely one specimen is come down to us; but that every example should be in the least perfect character? For my part, I believe that there was no writing antecedent to the law at Mount Sina. Here the divine art was promulgated; of which other nations partook the Tyrians and Sidonians first, as they were the nearest to the fountain-head. And when this discovery became more known; even then I imagine, that its progress was very slow: that in many countries, whither it was carried, it was but partially received, and made use of to no purpose of consequence. The Romans carried their pretensions to letters pretty high;, and the Helladian Greeks still higher; yet the former marked their years by a nail driven into a post: and the utmost effort of Grecian literature for some ages was simply to write down the names of the Olympic victors from Coræbus; and to register the priestesses of Argos. Why letters, when introduced, were so partially received, and employed to so little purpose, a twofold reason may be given. First, the want of antecedent writings, to encourage people to proceed in the same track. Where science is introduced together with letters; the latter are more generally received, and more abundantly used. For the practice of writing, or, in other words, composing, depends upon previous reading, and example. But the Cadmians, who brought letters to Greece, brought those elements only; and those much later, I believe, than is generally imagined. Nor had the Helladians any tendency to learning, till they were |